[mythtv-users] Enabling multirec borks usability a bit.

[mugginz]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 05:27:15 am Simon Hobson wrote:
> mugginz wrote:
> >I should be able to switch between any channel from the muxes sitting on
> >each of the tuners.  So, any channel available from the muxes that
> >transmit channels 7, 9 and 10.
> 
> ASIU, the standard functionality is that you can only select channels
> available in the mux that the tuner is currently tuned to - to select
> anything else you must manually switch card. I'd imagine it's an
> artifact from when the system was originally coded when one tuner
> meant one channel - the ability to access other channels in a mux is
> a bonus add on. Look on the bright side, a colleague at work looked
> over my shoulder today when I was remotely adding some recording
> rules with MythWeb and commented that he thought he should try it
> sometime.
> 
> At the moment he's using Win7 Media Centre and that does not allow
> multirec - when a tuner is in use, that's it. So even if he wants to
> record from channels in the same mux, he must use a different tuner
> for each.

As for remotely controlling Win7 Media Centre I guess he could use remote 
desktop to perform this but I must say it does have some surprising 
shortcomings in a couple of areas.  When you look at its general level of 
polish and usability which is quite high, I cant understand why they also 
built in some fairly silly limitations,  It could be completely unsurpassable 
if not for those.

MythTV's borkage (from an optimal implementation standpoint) is a little 
unfortunate though.  There's a bit of leakage from the lower level 
implementation details into the UI that could be much better dealt with and 
made much more user friendly but I guess it'll get there with time.

> 
> mugginz wrote:
> >It's the little (or not so little depending on your point of view) things
> >like this that stop a few people I know from setting up MythTV.  Not to
> >mention the nightmare that is initial config (but at least with practice
> >becomes easier).
> 
> I know what you mean, it is no mean feat to get a system up and
> running - but it's getting 'less tricky' !
> 
> To be fair to the project, they have a HUGE target to hit. Just
> consider all the various combinations of digital & analog, cable &
> terrestrial & satellite, analogue & digital displays, remotes, case
> front displays, ... and not least of all, a veritable plethora of
> tuners and encoder devices. All this across lots of countries with
> differing ideas of what the broadcast signal should be. The old
> saying about the dancing bear comes to mind - the wonder is not that
> it dances so well, but that it dances at all !
> 
I guess now that the project has gotten so far along it's now easy to see the 
improvements that could be made to make the package pretty much perfect.  
Still, with the limitations it does have I still find it overall a pretty good 
solution.

> When a manufacturer brings an appliance PVR to market - they'll have
> just one hardware platform, one transmission standard, and one
> relatively small set of functionality to support. Even then, it can
> be a nightmare - we've a Panasonic PVR in the house that cost a not
> insignificant sum to buy, was positively bug ridden when it
> eventually arrived, has had just one software update that partially
> fixed some bugs, and has been dropped like a hot potato and the users
> abandoned (doesn't make me want to buy another Panny product ever
> again). My Myth setup is more reliable, and far more capable - though
> it was harder to set up and would cost more to build from scratch.

It is quite surprising just how many consumer PVRs have bugs.  And in typical 
fashion once they have your money you no longer matter with a lot of 
electronics companies.